Wow did Charles Gibson and his programmers make every efort to skew the debate to the right. THey started off with like 5 hypothetical situations in a row about nuclear threats hiding out in Pakistan.

Reading about the debates tonight I felt the NYT seriously undermined Edwards performance. Looking around verious sites, it was clear that most people thought Edwards won. So did I.

The NYT and also HUFFINGTON POST DOES THEIR BEST TO KILL OFF EDWARDS ... AGAIN.

I don't get local channels so don't get network programming. Thank you for the information. I have looked around and came up with a mixed review.

There is a transcript of the debate at New York Times, all 27 pages of it.

Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

In the first question the tone was apparently set:



And it seems to go on from there.

Must have been some debate!

No, I didn't see the debate, but I'm not surprised. The MSM knows that the only hope of their corporate masters to keep Republicans in the White House is to constantly ratchet up the fearmongering to a fever pitch over the next 10 months. If they allow the Democrats to talk about health care and jobs, they are finished.



As far as the treatment of John Edwards, he has committed the cardinal sin of calling for a class war against the all-powerful global cartel. Therefore, he must be destroyed immediately, before they take on the lesser threats represented by Obama and Clinton.

John Edwards' Fighting Words

"There are very powerful forces, well-financed forces, standing between you and the future your children should have. That's what this election is about. Unless and until you have a president of the United States who's willing to stand up with some backbone and some guts and fight and stand up to these corporate interests there will never be real change."

"I think most Americans see that corporate power and corporate greed are keeping the American dream from getting to their children. We have a fight on our hands."

"I think the difference between Wal-Mart making $12 billion and making $3 billion is a lot of people who could lead better lives and provide for their families better."

"You cannot bring about, in my judgment, the change this country so desperately needs, either if you take their money, or if you say, 'We're going to sit at the table with insurance companies, drug companies, and they're going to compromise their power away'. It is a fantasy. It will never happen. I'll tell you when they'll give away their power: When we take their power away from them."

I took my little C-Crane radio, which gets local TV signals, to dinner.

I listened to the repubs during dinner, and luckily did not blow it there.

The repub debate was so negative with their attacks of each other. It also seemed to focus on the "fear card". And to focus solely on the "surge" seemed to be a disservice to the audience sitting through that side show.

The dem debate was better. They didn't get as negative. And the contrast on how to get out of Iraq was interesting.

In a debate like that, though, where a bunch of topics are thrown out, you still only get the sound bites and the non-illuminating insight on any one issue from the candidates in total.

There are a myriad of things to consider with our military, the most of which is Iraq, but not solely the only issue. It would be nice to see a debate somewhere focus just on that.